Have I mentioned that the group that use the tactic also considers poodles (and other dogs) to be unclean?
Now you are just trying to deflect your concession with made up 'facts' and fuzzy math. It is really a shame your parents could not afford you a better education.
Anybody who bothers to read the simplest of histories is well aware of what happened.
The Palestine Mandate was partitioned by the UN.
The Jewish organizations declared the state of Israel on the half assigned to them.
The Palestinians, along with the other Arab states, declared war.
Israel won.
Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
Jordan occupied the West Bank.There is no question as to those events, or of the existence of Palestinian riots before the partition by the UN, or of dozens of other fully documented events.
I don't think there's any question that those events occurred. However, if you ask Israelis why those events occurred, you'll get a different answer than if you asked Palestinians the same question. Who's right? Who's wrong? I would say that the answer to those questions is "Both and neither." I would also say that preventing people from even asking these questions in the pursuit of truth is wrong, and I think that's what Ahmadenijahd objects to as well.
|
And the third largest party in Israel after the elections wants to ethnically purge Arabs from Israel. Does this mean that a significant proportion of Israel is equally abhorrent and subject to condemnation to you?
Given that the history of the region includes population exchange, why would there be such a need?
Given that they advocate population exchange as part of territorial exchance, and not extermination, which is in line with the recognized armistice agreements, why would there be such a need?Given that the party won less than 12% of the vote, compared to entire countries like Iran and Syria, or the majority in the Palestinian territories that voted for a group advocation extermination, why would there be a need?
Given that the Obama administration seeks to extend contacts with Arab groups advocating policies of expulsion, why would there be a need?
Given that condemnations and demands that such groups and their advocates be silenced are never made, why would there be a need?
Given that I was answering a question of easily checked history and not of condemnation, why do you feel a need to suddenly insist that which has not yet been condemned be condemned?
|
|
And the third largest party in Israel after the elections wants to ethnically purge Arabs from Israel. Does this mean that a significant proportion of Israel is equally abhorrent and subject to condemnation to you?Given that the history of the region includes population exchange, why would there be such a need?
Given that they advocate population exchange as part of territorial exchance, and not extermination, which is in line with the recognized armistice agreements, why would there be such a need?
Given that the party won less than 12% of the vote, compared to entire countries like Iran and Syria, or the majority in the Palestinian territories that voted for a group advocation extermination, why would there be a need?
Given that the Obama administration seeks to extend contacts with Arab groups advocating policies of expulsion, why would there be a need?
Given that condemnations and demands that such groups and their advocates be silenced are never made, why would there be a need?
Given that I was answering a question of easily checked history and not of condemnation, why do you feel a need to suddenly insist that which has not yet been condemned be condemned?
Because you chose to answer the question of historical accuracy and then condemn those who were asking it for having the stated goal of ethnically cleansing all non-Arab, non-Muslims. You chose to use is to condemn the abhorrent views of Ahmadinijad. You chose not to condemn the abhorrent views of the third largest party in Israel. If it is abhorrent for one to suggest ethnic cleansing, it is abhorrent for all. Both are racist views and both need to be condemned,. You criticise people for not condemning those on the other side, but fail to condemn those on your own. Your dedication to free speech is clearly as questionable and one-sided as those you criticise.
|
|
Now you are just trying to deflect your concession with made up 'facts' and fuzzy math. It is really a shame your parents could not afford you a better education.
Sorry oh yapping one, but it is all too true.
(Note: Several of those have multiple references on a page. You might have to check through them. The last is particularly instructive.)
|
|
I don't think there's any question that those events occurred. However, if you ask Israelis why those events occurred, you'll get a different answer than if you asked Palestinians the same question. Who's right? Who's wrong? I would say that the answer to those questions is "Both and neither." I would also say that preventing people from even asking these questions in the pursuit of truth is wrong, and I think that's what Ahmadenijahd objects to as well.
Actually there are many who question whether those events occurred as noted, or even occurred at all.
As for why, that is a quaint dodge Ahmedenijad has come up with to try and invalidate the existence of a country, but it fails to address the reality of the resolution he advocates, expulsion.As for preventing people from asking questions, you might want to ask who has done that. Questioning and criticizing the events has long happened in Israel, including parties currently in their parliament who are actively anti-zionist. No such criticism is permitted, and no anti-Palestinian state party exists, in the Palestinian Authority or any Arab state. Perhaps that is a clue as to just who wants to silence actual investigation and discussion of the issues.
|
|
Because you chose to answer the question of historical accuracy and then condemn those who were asking it for having the stated goal of ethnically cleansing all non-Arab, non-Muslims. You chose to use is to condemn the abhorrent views of Ahmadinijad.
I did?
There is a condemnation of those views in what I wrote?Or is there a condemnation of those who choose to be willfully ignorant of those views expressed by those people, and who then advocate bizarre approaches to the issues based on that ignorance?
You chose not to condemn the abhorrent views of the third largest party in Israel. If it is abhorrent for one to suggest ethnic cleansing, it is abhorrent for all. Both are racist views and both need to be condemned.
But Yisroel Beitenu does not advocate ethnic cleansing. That is the key element you are ignoring.
They advocate surrendering land so that Arabs do not have to live in a country that is apparently so horrible for them to live in.That is like saying the U.S. would be engaging in ethnic cleansing if they gave the southwest back to Mexico the way the racist group La Raza demands, which would have the effect of removing a large percentage of the Hispanic population of the U.S.
You criticise people for not condemning those on the other side, but fail to condemn those on your own. Your dedication to free speech is clearly as questionable and one-sided as those you criticise.
Criticizing individuals for what they say or do is not the same as criticizing people for what they have not said or done
Condemning people for what they say and do is not incompatible with defending people who are being condemned for what they have not said or done.Criticizing people for what they say is not the same as demanding they be silenced before they say it.
Your dedication to attacking me is clearly as questionable and one-sided as those who defend those I have cited.
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Eat what ever is caught for you by a dog or a hawk you have trained and set off when you have mentioned Allah's name. I said: (Does this apply) if it killed (the animal)? He said: When it kills it without eating any of it, for it caught it only for you.
I assume the killing is after the dog is trained and retrieved dinner. I do not think it would work the other way.
The Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) ordered to kill dogs, and we were even killing a dog which a woman brought with her from the desert. Afterwards he forbade to kill them, saying: Confine yourselves to the type which is black.
It seems the prophet only has a problem with black dogs.
He climbed down into it and drank (water) and then came out and saw a dog lolling its tongue on account of thirst and eating the moistened earth. The person said: This dog has suffered from thirst as I had suffered from it. He climbed down into the well, filled his shoe with water, then caught it in his mouth until he climbed up and made the dog drink it. So Allah appreciated this act of his and pardoned him.
Obviously not a black dog. They are just evil.
It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.
Is that a picture of a dog or any kind of picture ‘cause you know if you give kids crayons…
Aba Mas'ud al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) forbade the charging of price of the dog, and earnings of a prostitute and sweets offered to a kahin.
So we have value… Apparently Allah’s Messenger does not believe in inflation.
So the Qur'an is a little like Levitical law.
|
|
So the Qur'an is a little like Levitical law.
Not exactly.
You missed a bunch:
Book 026, Number 5545:
Ibn 'Umar reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanding the killing of dogs and the killing of the striped and the short-tailed snakes, for both of them affect the eyesight adversely and cause miscarriage.
Book 010, Number 3809:
Ibn 'Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) giving command for killing dogs.
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 448:
Narrated Abu Talha:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
(So any picture.)
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 531:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet said, "Five kinds of animals are mischief-doers and can be killed even in the Sanctuary: They are the rat the scorpion, the kite, the crow and the rabid dog."
Volume 1, Book 9, Number 493:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs.
Things are looking glooms for those of the poodle persuasion.
Why do you hate America?
Oooo! Oooo! Better yet…
Fascist.
You know it's very difficult to debate religious scriptures when:
#1 The quoted passages are a translation.
#2 Text can be translated in different ways from Arabic to English
#3 Some scholars even disagree about the meaning of the original Arabic
So, if you are going to quote stuff like that, it's appropriate and honorable to bring scholarly interpretations of the quotes who can put those in context.
Even I, as a Muslim, am not educated well enough in the Hadith you have quoted to know the source, whether it is an accepted Hadith, or whether the translation is accurate.
Things are looking glooms for those of the poodle persuasion.
*whines*
...
#1 The quoted passages are a translation.
#2 Text can be translated in different ways from Arabic to English
#3 Some scholars even disagree about the meaning of the original Arabic
...
Hebrew and Christian scriptures get kicked around on these boards, too, and we can say the same about them and their sources languages.
Hopefully, though, you will now see that Courtfool is the anti-God and MUST_BE_DESTROYED!
|
|
...
#1 The quoted passages are a translation.
#2 Text can be translated in different ways from Arabic to English
#3 Some scholars even disagree about the meaning of the original Arabic
...
Hebrew and Christian scriptures get kicked around on these boards, too, and we can say the same about them and their sources languages.
Hopefully, though, you will now see that Courtfool is the anti-God and MUST_BE_DESTROYED!
Well, obviously, but you don't need a religious text to tell you that.
I had no idea I was such a threat.
I had no idea I was such a threat.
Hatha kelb, hiywan WASEK!
Bism Allah, al raham wa raheem, wa rasouluhu Nebi Mohammed, siloktilokum!
Arabic Translation:
That dog is an UNCLEAN animal!
In the name of God, the Most compassionate and Merciful, and his prophet Mohammed, I will KILL you!
Whips out large scimitar
AYIAYIAYIAYIAYIAYIAYIAYIAYI!
something very offensive
Seriously. Maturity?
something very offensiveSeriously. Maturity?
Seriously. joke. I find all religions good joke fodder, don't take especial offense dude.
Seriously. joke. I find all religons good joke fodder, don't take especial offense dude.something very offensiveSeriously. Maturity?
Too late.
I think you'll all find this article relevant.
That was cruel and inhumane Shiny. ;)
|
|
You know it's very difficult to debate religious scriptures when:
#1 The quoted passages are a translation.
#2 Text can be translated in different ways from Arabic to English
#3 Some scholars even disagree about the meaning of the original ArabicSo, if you are going to quote stuff like that, it's appropriate and honorable to bring scholarly interpretations of the quotes who can put those in context.
Even I, as a Muslim, am not educated well enough in the Hadith you have quoted to know the source, whether it is an accepted Hadith, or whether the translation is accurate.
Well, then, we can close all the religion-centered boards, since all the original Abrahamic texts are translations.
I will now accept the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Too late.
Well, for what's it's worth you have my apologies for offending you. I was riffing on CourtFool,not Islam.
Too late.Well, for what's it's worth you have my apologies for offending you. I was riffing on CourtFool,not Islam.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
You know it's very difficult to debate religious scriptures when:
#1 The quoted passages are a translation.
#2 Text can be translated in different ways from Arabic to English
#3 Some scholars even disagree about the meaning of the original ArabicSo, if you are going to quote stuff like that, it's appropriate and honorable to bring scholarly interpretations of the quotes who can put those in context.
Even I, as a Muslim, am not educated well enough in the Hadith you have quoted to know the source, whether it is an accepted Hadith, or whether the translation is accurate.
Well, then, we can close all the religion-centered boards, since all the original Abrahamic texts are translations.
I will now accept the Nobel Prize for Peace.
I think the important thing is that if someone is going to post or quote religious scripture, they should do it at least with an air of intent not to make light of such scripture. I didn't see that in this case. I just suggest we take these things a little more seriously.
|
|
You know it's very difficult to debate religious scriptures when:
#1 The quoted passages are a translation.
#2 Text can be translated in different ways from Arabic to English
#3 Some scholars even disagree about the meaning of the original ArabicSo, if you are going to quote stuff like that, it's appropriate and honorable to bring scholarly interpretations of the quotes who can put those in context.
Even I, as a Muslim, am not educated well enough in the Hadith you have quoted to know the source, whether it is an accepted Hadith, or whether the translation is accurate.
The home page for those hadith is:
Here.Those are from:
Sahih Bukhari
Sahih Muslim
Sunan Abu-Dawud
Malik Muwatta
The purpose of the overall section is:
Here.
Basically, those are respected translations from the most widely accepted collections of hadith.
You can, with very little effort, track back from the individual pages to discover the specific source, which book, and which numbered hadith.
Now if you would like to produce any authentic, scholarly interpretations of any of those quoted that state that dogs are not unclean animals, or that those are not legitimate hadith, feel free.
As for interpretation, given that the Koran itself is not written in modern Arabic and so must effectively be translated by anyone reading from it, the claim regarding the accuracy of the translation has a significantly higher bar to cross. That USC sees fit to host it suggests the translations are quite legitimate.
|
|
I think the important thing is that if someone is going to post or quote religious scripture, they should do it at least with an air of intent not to make light of such scripture. I didn't see that in this case. I just suggest we take these things a little more seriously.
I take it very seriously.
Especially when it has an impact on all of society, with things like this, or this, and this, and even this.|
|
I think the important thing is that if someone is going to post or quote religious scripture, they should do it at least with an air of intent not to make light of such scripture. I didn't see that in this case. I just suggest we take these things a little more seriously.I take it very seriously.
Especially when it has an impact on all of society, with things like this, or this, and this, and even this.
I agree with you 100%. And now I better be quiet before I get in trouble.
And I definitely agree that those posts are much better than simple citations of scripture without citing a source. Taking issue with how religious beliefs affect others in daily life is significant to everyone.
Thank you for a more comprehensive response.
And I definitely agree that those posts are much better than simple citations of scripture without citing a source.The source was readily viewable on the page linked to.
I was referring to your prior post responding to CourtFool regarding dogs vis a vis Islam. I thought your follow up posts responding to me where you provide the source was better. I didn't see a reference to the Quranic source in the first posts.
I'd just like to comment on the issue of western culture colliding with Islamic scripture and sayings of the prophet.
The aforementioned incidents are really a case of differing values and differing expectations when it comes to culture. One of the questions I would have for the taxi companies is "Are taxi drivers considered to be independent businessmen and do they have the right to refuse service to anyone without reprisal?" If so, then it's up to the taxi driver.
However, I personally don't think it sets a moral example to refuse service to a blind person when it is common in this culture to have a dog to guide you. I would say the taxi driver is erring on the more stricter side of religious doctrine (he certainly has a choice, just saying that it's forbidden doesn't mean there aren't exceptions).
As to alcohol, it's the same thing. I know of one Muslim who used to run a convenience store and sell alcohol. His business did fine, but once he started obeying Islamic scripture and stopped selling alcohol, his business dropped off so sharply that he had to give it up.
In a more personal example, I'm Dungeon Master for my group and I as my players not to drink alcohol while we game. It's my house so they respect that. I also have a restriction on pork. Technically I'm not allowed to buy it for anyone, but when we order pizza, I try to console myself by saying as long as I don't pay for it, it's fine.
I think with any religion or culture, we have to decide what is moral and acceptable. When I run into conflicts with the culture at large, I have to decide what my limits are and what repercussions my decisions will entail.
In the circumstances mentioned by Samuel. I feel like the taxi drivers have the right to refuse the service, but they should also evaluate if they are in an appropriate line of work if their religion is going to clash with what they are expected to do. Society can't always make accommodations for everyone's religious beliefs, especially when your beliefs are in the minority.
|
|
I was referring to your prior post responding to CourtFool regarding dogs vis a vis Islam. I thought your follow up posts responding to me where you provide the source was better. I didn't see a reference to the Quranic source in the first posts.
Again, it was there in context.
My first post provided the links.His reply was selections from those links.
My response was others selections from those links.
Clicking any of those links provided an entire page, with the source listed at the top of the page, which could then be tracked back to the overall listing.
And that of course showed they are from the hadith.
I'd just like to comment on the issue of western culture colliding with Islamic scripture and sayings of the prophet.
. . .
In the circumstances mentioned by Samuel. I feel like the taxi drivers have the right to refuse the service, but they should also evaluate if they are in an appropriate line of work if their religion is going to clash with what they are expected to do. Society can't always make accommodations for everyone's religious beliefs, especially when your beliefs are in the minority.
It is not so much accommodation, but an expectation of others accepting the supremacy of particular religious, or philosophical, beliefs. I have as little desire to live under Puritan (or similar) Blue Laws as I do to live under Sharia, or to live under PETA dictated dietary laws.
What then when such objection is turned into a free speech and religious persecution issue? How are my rights not being infringed by the assertions of such groups?Too many, like those students at Columbia, seem willing to ignore that in pursuit of their own agendas, and I equally oppose them.
It is not so much accommodation, but an expectation of others accepting the supremacy of particular religious, or philosophical, beliefs. I have as little desire to live under Puritan (or similar) Blue Laws as I do to live under Sharia, or to live under PETA dictated dietary laws.
What then when such objection is turned into a free speech and religious persecution issue? How are my rights not being infringed by the assertions of such groups?
Too many, like those students at Columbia, seem willing to ignore that in pursuit of their own agendas, and I equally oppose them.
I think many people don't understand that the first amendment rights to free speech and religion are not absolute rights. They are constrained by what society and, in many cases, what the courts interpret those rights to be. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't have human ritual sacrifice as part of your religion. And I personally believe that a woman should uncover her face as part of society's need to practice a certain level of security. Should we accommodate these women by having another woman validate her identity against an identity card? I think that's a fair compromise and doesn't put too much of a burden on society. We should do as much as is realistically possible to accommodate all religions.
Honestly, I think many Muslim groups try to work within the common law to find a compromise, but the examples here are definitely those who believe that their religious needs must override societal standards. I don't think that their point of view is fair whether or not they believe in the supremacy of their beliefs.
Again, it was there in context. My first post provided the links. His reply was selections from those links. My response was others selections from those links.
I apologize if I came off high-handed, I didn't see the links. I found them in your earlier post. Sometimes it's hard to notice something is a link when it's embedded in a sentence and the colors aren't identifiable enough.
|
|
I think many people don't understand that the first amendment rights to free speech and religion are not absolute rights. They are constrained by what society and, in many cases, what the courts interpret those rights to be. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't have human ritual sacrifice as part of your religion. And I personally believe that a woman should uncover her face as part of society's need to practice a certain level of security. Should we accommodate these women by having another woman validate her identity against an identity card? I think that's a fair compromise and doesn't put too much of a burden on society. We should do as much as is realistically possible to accommodate all religions.
Honestly, I think many Muslim groups try to work within the common law to find a compromise, but the examples here are definitely those who believe that their religious needs must override societal standards. I don't think that their point of view is fair whether or not they believe in the supremacy of their beliefs.
In general, I agree.
I would note how the difference between the two concept exists as the primary focus of the vast majority of criticisms that appear.I apologize if I came off high-handed, I didn't see the links. I found them in your earlier post. Sometimes it's hard to notice something is a link when it's embedded in a sentence and the colors aren't identifiable enough.
That I can understand.
It took me quite some time to understand how links appear when embedded on these message boards.
I think you'll all find this article relevant.That was cruel and inhumane Shiny. ;)
I know. That's why I posted it.
I am evil incarnate.